From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:46:18 +0100 Subject: ACPI vs DT at runtime In-Reply-To: <20131118151900.GF16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <201311181605.37300.arnd@arndb.de> <20131118151900.GF16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <201311181646.19070.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 18 November 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > Can you point to specific patches? > > No, because they weren't publically posted, so I don't feel that I can > say all that much; they were from quite a large company though. I see. > > I can't say I'm an expert on this, but everything I've seen with ACPI > > is tables of binary data with four-letter identifiers that are defined > > by the ACPI group, but not using strings in a similar manner to DT. > > They are using strings which are the same as the DT properties, but > without the vendor prefix - but yes, to only retrieve things like > booleans, u32s and such like. They also have support for fixed-rate > clocks via the clk API too... > > I'd like them to post the patches publically so a more open discussion > could occur. I'd definitely like that too, especially since managing clocks etc. is (as multiple people have pointed out in this thread) a very un-ACPI-like thing to do and it would be important for them to have the debate whether that has a chance of getting accepted in the kernel (or the ACPI spec, for that matter) or not. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: ACPI vs DT at runtime Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:46:18 +0100 Message-ID: <201311181646.19070.arnd@arndb.de> References: <201311181605.37300.arnd@arndb.de> <20131118151900.GF16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20131118151900.GF16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Olof Johansson , Mark Rutland , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Grant Likely , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Monday 18 November 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > Can you point to specific patches? > > No, because they weren't publically posted, so I don't feel that I can > say all that much; they were from quite a large company though. I see. > > I can't say I'm an expert on this, but everything I've seen with ACPI > > is tables of binary data with four-letter identifiers that are defined > > by the ACPI group, but not using strings in a similar manner to DT. > > They are using strings which are the same as the DT properties, but > without the vendor prefix - but yes, to only retrieve things like > booleans, u32s and such like. They also have support for fixed-rate > clocks via the clk API too... > > I'd like them to post the patches publically so a more open discussion > could occur. I'd definitely like that too, especially since managing clocks etc. is (as multiple people have pointed out in this thread) a very un-ACPI-like thing to do and it would be important for them to have the debate whether that has a chance of getting accepted in the kernel (or the ACPI spec, for that matter) or not. Arnd